|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 26, 2023 17:27:17 GMT
Of course you won't because how it was born lies in the undemocratic past and the ability to change any of that exists in the parts in the here and now that are undemocratic. FOM for example cannot be changed as it lies at the heart of what the EU is. If a majority of members want to change it, they can. And in fact there have been instances when members have closed their borders, one being during Covid. They didnt need approval from the EU. They are free to do so as they wish. Security in requests from Interpol also close borders. They can also close airspace at will, as has happened recently during ATC strikes. You do have a tortured, uneducated concept of the EU. If a majority want to change it they can try, that is not the same as actually succeeding once legality gets in the way. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Nov 26, 2023 17:33:41 GMT
The EU operates on democratic decision making.
That wont change.
And i sincerely hope I dont have to explain the decision making process to you AGAIN.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2023 18:02:50 GMT
Bollocks from you I say in response. And the food banks have far more to do with our own governments policies than with the EU. Otherwise there would be foodbanks throughout the EU. There are. 3.5 million depend on food banks in France. 2 million Germans depend on Tafel food banks in Germany. There were already eight thousand food bank dependent Dutch households by 2006. The demand has grown there. Still blaming everything on the Tories? The first British food bank opened in 2000, at the height of Blairism. There's a large number of food banks in Poland. aktywniobywatele.org.pl/en/projekty/the-federation-of-polish-food-banks/All across the EU there are food banks.
Stop pretending that everything would have been wonderful had we stayed.
The EU is a failing project.
It has free movement of poverty.
Free movement of debt.
Free movement of crime.
It does not have wage parity.
It does not have cost of living parity.
People from very poor countries are moving to richer ones and failing.
The EU lacks the democratic institutions necessary to be able to provide parity of living.
It does however facilitate crony capitalism.
Poverty exploitation.
Businesses ditching high wage economies for low wage economies.
It does not work.
It desperately needs reform and has not been reformed.
We were told simultaneously that the EU had been reformed and paradoxically that it needed reform.
There is a reason we voted leave and it isn't because we're stupid racists, or stupid non racists.
It's because the EU doesn't work, can't be reformed and was costing us £9.5 billion a year for membership of an organisation that controlled our laws and wouldn't let us make our own free trade agreements.
Membership was a complete and utter failure.
I think you will find that I acknowledged that the first food banks appeared under Blair and stated reasons why. Re-read my post. They have most definitely multiplied under the Tories though. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 26, 2023 20:20:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 27, 2023 5:59:12 GMT
I agree about doing one's homework, what I can't stand is homework done from a biased perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 27, 2023 8:37:05 GMT
But the fact that you claim we'd be better off in the EU - without giving any reason why - does constitute evidence to the contrary.Let's have a little history lesson and go back to when we joined the Common Market. There was a good reason to join this trading body because, back then, tariffs were very high so it made some sense to pay to join the Common Market. Although why we should pay for "free" trade I've never understood. Even so there were some big dangers in free trade with Europe because we exposed our industry to the likes of Germany and we lost out badly - all our car industry has gone for example. However, over the years, world tariffs have plummeted while our "budget contribution" to the EU has soared. We were paying more to be a member of the free trade club than we would have paid in tariffs. Which makes no sense. We had also given away our sovereignty (Maastricht) and our fishing waters (for nothing in return) and had virtually no say in any of the decision making because our vote numbers had been eroded. And also the trade we do with the EU has been gradually dropping as Europe goes into decline and India and China are the growing markets. Also by being in the protectionist Customs Union it meant that we had to raise high tariff barriers against non-EU members - so it was uneconomic to trade with the Commonwealth. Basically membership of the EU made no sense whatsoever for us. And Jean-Claude Juncker himself admitted this! So what do you think is going to happen in the future that will suddenly make it economically advantageous to rejoin the EU? It's got to be something pretty massive. Come on - give us the benefit of your economic knowledge, srb. Nonsense. It is a well known fact of economics that the less restricted the trade, and the fewer the obstacles there are to the free movement of goods and services, the more standardisation in terms of rules and regulations, the simpler it is to trade internationally, the more prosperous societies will tend to be. Which is why a single market for goods and services with rules that are the same for everyone in it will - all other things being equal - tend to increase trade and prosperity for all. I am surprised that with your claims to economic knowledge you fail to understand this. No it's not. Tariffs were invented for a reason, srb - to protect a country from competition that would adversely affect its own producers. What do you think the Customs Union is? Membership of the CU means you have to raise tariffs against non-EU nations. The EU is effectively a big protectionist bloc that enforces standardisation on its members and tries to also enforce it on trading partners. That's why they're finding it very hard to make trading deals now. An FTA only works well between two countries that have "complementary" economies - e.g. one country is industrial and the other is agricultural (like Germany and France maybe). Big FTAs are dangerous and the UK would have been better advised to make individual sectoral treaties with the EU (like Switzerland did), but our remainer parliament had passed the Surrender Act that made that impossible. Is this misconception of economics what you're relying on to make the UK better off in the EU, srb? There were some good reasons for our joining the Common Market 50 or so years ago (mainly because tariffs were very high back then and membership was cheap) but relationship that we ended up with was VERY one-sided and we gave away so much for absolutely no advantage whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 27, 2023 9:01:16 GMT
In particular I think that the internet has allowed the deliberate dissemination of disinformation around the world. And some of this nonsense becomes accepted reality before anyone has had a chance to refute it - and it then becomes irrefutable. The CO2 climate change theory is an obvious one, which is probably an early example of "non-fatal warfare". The elimination of CO2 is a very easy way to impoverish the developed nations and destroy the capitalist system. It's a case of very clever disinformation. Yet you yourself are the clearest example on this forum of the very phenomenon you describe without realising it. That doesn't really make sense. I simply look at stuff from a scientific point of view. I look at the facts and try to understand "why". When stuff doesn't make sense there is usually a reason. So when the referendum promises from the Tories were to cut immigration, for example, yet immigration is vastly higher now that it ever was in recorded history - and Cameron is talking about "seeking a closer relationship with the EU" and most of the true Brexiteers have either been forced out or sidelined - I think that's very "strange". So I look for who benefits from this broken promise and it's pretty obvious that the prime candidate is the EU. Who will be "rolling on the floor laughing their arses off" that we left the EU to cut immigration and it's now doubled? The EU Commission. Of course it may have nothing to do with them but it is noticeable that Sunak and Cameron are VERY chummy with Ursula van der Leyen - and the EU Commission has a lot of friends among our MPs. And in the case of CO2 warming there is no evidence for this theory and the models based on it don't work, yet we hear that 97% of scientists believe it (they don't) and the BBC won't give a platform to anyone who doesn't propagate this internet myth. So who benefits from this disinformation - various countries who are good at disinformation. Again there may be another reason for what's going on, but I can't think of one. We also have a department of govt now (the 88th Brigade) which investigates disinformation as a form of non-lethal warfare. It's a very powerful tool that can't be dismissed. |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Nov 27, 2023 9:27:02 GMT
steppenwolf I think you mean the 77th Brigade  |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 27, 2023 10:08:57 GMT
Nonsense. It is a well known fact of economics that the less restricted the trade, and the fewer the obstacles there are to the free movement of goods and services, the more standardisation in terms of rules and regulations, the simpler it is to trade internationally, the more prosperous societies will tend to be. Which is why a single market for goods and services with rules that are the same for everyone in it will - all other things being equal - tend to increase trade and prosperity for all. I am surprised that with your claims to economic knowledge you fail to understand this. No it's not. Tariffs were invented for a reason, srb - to protect a country from competition that would adversely affect its own producers. What do you think the Customs Union is? Membership of the CU means you have to raise tariffs against non-EU nations. The EU is effectively a big protectionist bloc that enforces standardisation on its members and tries to also enforce it on trading partners. That's why they're finding it very hard to make trading deals now. An FTA only works well between two countries that have "complementary" economies - e.g. one country is industrial and the other is agricultural (like Germany and France maybe). Big FTAs are dangerous and the UK would have been better advised to make individual sectoral treaties with the EU (like Switzerland did), but our remainer parliament had passed the Surrender Act that made that impossible. Is this misconception of economics what you're relying on to make the UK better off in the EU, srb? There were some good reasons for our joining the Common Market 50 or so years ago (mainly because tariffs were very high back then and membership was cheap) but relationship that we ended up with was VERY one-sided and we gave away so much for absolutely no advantage whatsoever. Well said. Membership was an absolute failure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2023 11:37:10 GMT
Nonsense. It is a well known fact of economics that the less restricted the trade, and the fewer the obstacles there are to the free movement of goods and services, the more standardisation in terms of rules and regulations, the simpler it is to trade internationally, the more prosperous societies will tend to be. Which is why a single market for goods and services with rules that are the same for everyone in it will - all other things being equal - tend to increase trade and prosperity for all. I am surprised that with your claims to economic knowledge you fail to understand this. No it's not. Tariffs were invented for a reason, srb - to protect a country from competition that would adversely affect its own producers. What do you think the Customs Union is? Membership of the CU means you have to raise tariffs against non-EU nations. The EU is effectively a big protectionist bloc that enforces standardisation on its members and tries to also enforce it on trading partners. That's why they're finding it very hard to make trading deals now. An FTA only works well between two countries that have "complementary" economies - e.g. one country is industrial and the other is agricultural (like Germany and France maybe). Big FTAs are dangerous and the UK would have been better advised to make individual sectoral treaties with the EU (like Switzerland did), but our remainer parliament had passed the Surrender Act that made that impossible. Is this misconception of economics what you're relying on to make the UK better off in the EU, srb? There were some good reasons for our joining the Common Market 50 or so years ago (mainly because tariffs were very high back then and membership was cheap) but relationship that we ended up with was VERY one-sided and we gave away so much for absolutely no advantage whatsoever. I know the reason for tariff barriers is to protect your own industries, or at least some of them. But the 1930s showed us that if everybody does it, global trade diminishes and most of us get poorer. I know the EU has some tariff barriers against non-EU goods. But the EU itself is a very large area containing many countries, in which there is mostly free and frictionless trade. Generally, the larger the trading areas, the better for global prosperity. And though I am not sure about this without researching, if they have a free trade agreement with us, do they not with many others? Essentially, you expect that any increase in costs of trading with the EU in the form of border delays and greatly increased bureaucracy, will be more than offset by much more free trade with the rest of the world. Though a simple glance at a map shows us who our greatest trading partner is going to be. Because when it comes to goods, the further they have to travel by land or sea the greater the transportation costs. China for example can only compete with Europe here because its labour costs are so low that they counterbalance shipping costs. As countries like China enjoy growing prosperity, their labour costs will rise with it, as has happened in every industrially prosperous nation eventually. But I am not convinced that lower costs of trading with the rest of the world will make up for higher costs of trading with our nearest neighbours. But time will tell on that one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2023 11:47:33 GMT
Yet you yourself are the clearest example on this forum of the very phenomenon you describe without realising it. That doesn't really make sense. I simply look at stuff from a scientific point of view. I look at the facts and try to understand "why". When stuff doesn't make sense there is usually a reason. So when the referendum promises from the Tories were to cut immigration, for example, yet immigration is vastly higher now that it ever was in recorded history - and Cameron is talking about "seeking a closer relationship with the EU" and most of the true Brexiteers have either been forced out or sidelined - I think that's very "strange". So I look for who benefits from this broken promise and it's pretty obvious that the prime candidate is the EU. Who will be "rolling on the floor laughing their arses off" that we left the EU to cut immigration and it's now doubled? The EU Commission. Of course it may have nothing to do with them but it is noticeable that Sunak and Cameron are VERY chummy with Ursula van der Leyen - and the EU Commission has a lot of friends among our MPs. And in the case of CO2 warming there is no evidence for this theory and the models based on it don't work, yet we hear that 97% of scientists believe it (they don't) and the BBC won't give a platform to anyone who doesn't propagate this internet myth. So who benefits from this disinformation - various countries who are good at disinformation. Again there may be another reason for what's going on, but I can't think of one. We also have a department of govt now (the 88th Brigade) which investigates disinformation as a form of non-lethal warfare. It's a very powerful tool that can't be dismissed. But you are interpreting facts as all a part of some big bad plot by the EU in cahoots with Remainers here. In other words you are inventing a conspiracy to explain a series of facts, some of which might not even be connected. The failure to stop immigration is a failure of our own government who is in charge of it. Since it is a failure likely to cost them the election, this failure is not even in their own interests. So as the ones in charge it is not likely to be deliberate and more a measure of their own incompetence. As for most of the supposedly true Brexiteers being forced out or sidelined, that is much better understood by the fact that many of them were on the hard right and whacky end of Tory politics and an electoral liability. Their solid support for Brexit could itself be seen as another symptom of that. It is more likely to be that sensible people in government with access to all the data, including the ONS projections that economic growth and the size of our economy will be much lower and smaller as a result of Brexit, are making moves in the best interests of the country. So you do not have to interpret events as a conspiracy at all. Yet you choose to. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 27, 2023 13:13:55 GMT
No it's not. Tariffs were invented for a reason, srb - to protect a country from competition that would adversely affect its own producers. What do you think the Customs Union is? Membership of the CU means you have to raise tariffs against non-EU nations. The EU is effectively a big protectionist bloc that enforces standardisation on its members and tries to also enforce it on trading partners. That's why they're finding it very hard to make trading deals now. An FTA only works well between two countries that have "complementary" economies - e.g. one country is industrial and the other is agricultural (like Germany and France maybe). Big FTAs are dangerous and the UK would have been better advised to make individual sectoral treaties with the EU (like Switzerland did), but our remainer parliament had passed the Surrender Act that made that impossible. Is this misconception of economics what you're relying on to make the UK better off in the EU, srb? There were some good reasons for our joining the Common Market 50 or so years ago (mainly because tariffs were very high back then and membership was cheap) but relationship that we ended up with was VERY one-sided and we gave away so much for absolutely no advantage whatsoever. I know the reason for tariff barriers is to protect your own industries, or at least some of them. But the 1930s showed us that if everybody does it, global trade diminishes and most of us get poorer. I know the EU has some tariff barriers against non-EU goods. But the EU itself is a very large area containing many countries, in which there is mostly free and frictionless trade. Generally, the larger the trading areas, the better for global prosperity. And though I am not sure about this without researching, if they have a free trade agreement with us, do they not with many others? Essentially, you expect that any increase in costs of trading with the EU in the form of border delays and greatly increased bureaucracy, will be more than offset by much more free trade with the rest of the world. Though a simple glance at a map shows us who our greatest trading partner is going to be. Because when it comes to goods, the further they have to travel by land or sea the greater the transportation costs. China for example can only compete with Europe here because its labour costs are so low that they counterbalance shipping costs. As countries like China enjoy growing prosperity, their labour costs will rise with it, as has happened in every industrially prosperous nation eventually. But I am not convinced that lower costs of trading with the rest of the world will make up for higher costs of trading with our nearest neighbours. But time will tell on that one. There's so much wrong with this that it's hard to know where to begin. It's best to keep your posts shorter if you don't know much about the subject. I don't think there's much point in talking about the 1930's for a start. As I said the reason that we joined the Common Market in the 197o's was because tariffs were very high and membership was low. Now it's the other way round so we're actually better off not being a member of the EU (And therefore not surrendering our sovereignty - which BTW our politicians had no right to do) and paying any tariffs. Of course if countries raise tariffs against others then global trade will diminish- what do you think happened to our trade with the Commonwealth when the EU raised a tariff barrier against them? That was certainly not to our advantage. As for "Generally, the larger the trading areas, the better for global prosperity" - I thought you didn't like generalisations? Yet you've come up with a massive one that isn't even remotely true. Let's take the EU itself as an example a large trading area that trades freely, so you'd expect it to be doing really well. Unfortunately it's been a disaster for many of the nations and even the countries for whom the EU was designed (Germany and France) are doing very badly economically. Yet Germany is trading with a currency that's at least 20% below where it should be. And the "Gravity model" of trading - where it's better to trade with your nearest neighbours is pretty dubious nowadays. Certainly leaving the EU has created more friction with our trade with the EU, but there's no actual reason for that - as I said. This is deliberate obstruction created by the EU. Modern digital technology - if the EU would allow it - would solve any delays. But they're intent on causing trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 27, 2023 13:35:05 GMT
Certainly leaving the EU has created more friction with our trade with the EU, but there's no actual reason for that - as I said. This is deliberate obstruction created by the EU. Modern digital technology - if the EU would allow it - would solve any delays. But they're intent on causing trouble. Yes. It's essentially a form of corruption - a protection racket which hurts everyone and keeps their personally held power in place |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 27, 2023 13:56:04 GMT
That doesn't really make sense. I simply look at stuff from a scientific point of view. I look at the facts and try to understand "why". When stuff doesn't make sense there is usually a reason. So when the referendum promises from the Tories were to cut immigration, for example, yet immigration is vastly higher now that it ever was in recorded history - and Cameron is talking about "seeking a closer relationship with the EU" and most of the true Brexiteers have either been forced out or sidelined - I think that's very "strange". So I look for who benefits from this broken promise and it's pretty obvious that the prime candidate is the EU. Who will be "rolling on the floor laughing their arses off" that we left the EU to cut immigration and it's now doubled? The EU Commission. Of course it may have nothing to do with them but it is noticeable that Sunak and Cameron are VERY chummy with Ursula van der Leyen - and the EU Commission has a lot of friends among our MPs. And in the case of CO2 warming there is no evidence for this theory and the models based on it don't work, yet we hear that 97% of scientists believe it (they don't) and the BBC won't give a platform to anyone who doesn't propagate this internet myth. So who benefits from this disinformation - various countries who are good at disinformation. Again there may be another reason for what's going on, but I can't think of one. We also have a department of govt now (the 88th Brigade) which investigates disinformation as a form of non-lethal warfare. It's a very powerful tool that can't be dismissed. But you are interpreting facts as all a part of some big bad plot by the EU in cahoots with Remainers here. In other words you are inventing a conspiracy to explain a series of facts, some of which might not even be connected. The failure to stop immigration is a failure of our own government who is in charge of it. Since it is a failure likely to cost them the election, this failure is not even in their own interests. So as the ones in charge it is not likely to be deliberate and more a measure of their own incompetence. As for most of the supposedly true Brexiteers being forced out or sidelined, that is much better understood by the fact that many of them were on the hard right and whacky end of Tory politics and an electoral liability. Their solid support for Brexit could itself be seen as another symptom of that. It is more likely to be that sensible people in government with access to all the data, including the ONS projections that economic growth and the size of our economy will be much lower and smaller as a result of Brexit, are making moves in the best interests of the country. So you do not have to interpret events as a conspiracy at all. Yet you choose to. You seem to have forgotten that the public voted for Brexit. And the govt ministers (and PMs) who were booted out were trying to implement Brexit against fierce opposition. So Priti Patel was booted out for "bullying" - as was Raab. In both cases it was a blob conspiracy that got rid of them. Zahawi was also booted. Boris was ousted by partly a Civil Service attack - Lord Macdonald claimed that Boris was told that Pincher was a shirtlifter and went on the BBC "Today" to call Boris a liar. It was also by a plot from within the Tory party to oust Boris. Dominic Cummings himself said - even on the BBC - that Boris was just the PM to get Brexit done, but that he would be replaced by Sunak. IDS has said that he was ousted by Cummings and Gove. Truss was ousted by a concerted attack from the BoE, the Treasury (because she sacked Tom Scholar), Sunak and Gove/Cummings, and various remainers in the Tory party supported by the EU. This is all pretty well established. It's a long history of people who favour Brexit being removed by one method or another. With IDS it was "Betsygate" and with Boris it was "Partygate" - neither of which had a shred of truth in them. The only thing left to explain is why Sunak should be pursuing a policy that will lose him the election. The answer is that Sunak is just using his role as British PM as a stepping stone to being an "International stateman" probably based in the USA. H ehas no interest in the UK - which is why he is granting vast numbers of visas to Indians. He needs the likes of Modi on side. This is all pretty well doumented stuff srb. The "alternate reality" is yours - that the EU doesn't plot to undermine the UK and that politicians just do their job. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2023 15:58:33 GMT
But you are interpreting facts as all a part of some big bad plot by the EU in cahoots with Remainers here. In other words you are inventing a conspiracy to explain a series of facts, some of which might not even be connected. The failure to stop immigration is a failure of our own government who is in charge of it. Since it is a failure likely to cost them the election, this failure is not even in their own interests. So as the ones in charge it is not likely to be deliberate and more a measure of their own incompetence. As for most of the supposedly true Brexiteers being forced out or sidelined, that is much better understood by the fact that many of them were on the hard right and whacky end of Tory politics and an electoral liability. Their solid support for Brexit could itself be seen as another symptom of that. It is more likely to be that sensible people in government with access to all the data, including the ONS projections that economic growth and the size of our economy will be much lower and smaller as a result of Brexit, are making moves in the best interests of the country. So you do not have to interpret events as a conspiracy at all. Yet you choose to. You seem to have forgotten that the public voted for Brexit. And the govt ministers (and PMs) who were booted out were trying to implement Brexit against fierce opposition. So Priti Patel was booted out for "bullying" - as was Raab. In both cases it was a blob conspiracy that got rid of them. Zahawi was also booted. Boris was ousted by partly a Civil Service attack - Lord Macdonald claimed that Boris was told that Pincher was a shirtlifter and went on the BBC "Today" to call Boris a liar. It was also by a plot from within the Tory party to oust Boris. Dominic Cummings himself said - even on the BBC - that Boris was just the PM to get Brexit done, but that he would be replaced by Sunak. IDS has said that he was ousted by Cummings and Gove. Truss was ousted by a concerted attack from the BoE, the Treasury (because she sacked Tom Scholar), Sunak and Gove/Cummings, and various remainers in the Tory party supported by the EU. This is all pretty well established. It's a long history of people who favour Brexit being removed by one method or another. With IDS it was "Betsygate" and with Boris it was "Partygate" - neither of which had a shred of truth in them. The only thing left to explain is why Sunak should be pursuing a policy that will lose him the election. The answer is that Sunak is just using his role as British PM as a stepping stone to being an "International stateman" probably based in the USA. H ehas no interest in the UK - which is why he is granting vast numbers of visas to Indians. He needs the likes of Modi on side. This is all pretty well doumented stuff srb. The "alternate reality" is yours - that the EU doesn't plot to undermine the UK and that politicians just do their job. Anyone invoking "the blob"" loses credibility with me. Our disagreements are in any case becoming increasingly pointless. Have you changed your mind one single iota in response to me? I very much doubt it, and know I havent in response to you. And all we are really doing is saying the same things to each other in different combinations of words. So I am more inclined at this point to to just agree to differ. As for elections, we are likely to get another one before very long, giving you and any other member of the public the power to express your disapproval with or for anyone by voting against them. There will likely be an array of candidates in your constituency. Labour, Lib Dem and Tory almost certainly, but probably also Green and Reform and maybe more. And you can research the candidates to see where they stand on things. And if enough of your local constituency agree with you, your preferred candidate will win. If not, you will just have been outvoted by a larger number of people voting for some other candidate whom they prefer over your choice. Either way, it will be the voice of democracy speaking. |
|
